Maryland’s Independent Voters Are Shut Out—And Paying the Price

Roughly 22% of Marylanders—nearly one million people—don’t affiliate with either major political party. That number has grown 15% in just the last four years, reflecting a national trend: voters are tired of the extremes and the stale two-party monopoly. Yet despite their growing numbers, independents in Maryland are locked out of the most decisive part of the political process: the primaries.

In May 2025, five Maryland voters—Serena Bryson, Kimberle Fields, Amber Ivey, Robert Sartwell, and Dona Sauerburger—filed a lawsuit in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court to change that. Represented by former Republican Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford and backed by the Open Primaries Education Fund, they argue Maryland’s closed primaries violate the state constitution. Article I, Section 1 guarantees the right to vote in “all elections.” Articles 7 and 24 guarantee free elections and equal protection. And yet, independents are barred from casting a ballot in taxpayer-funded elections that often decide the outcome months before the general.

Think about that: taxpayers are forced to fund party primaries, even though independents are treated like second-class citizens at the ballot box. It’s no different than paying for a private club’s internal elections.

The Establishment’s Response

The Maryland State Board of Elections, joined by Gov. Wes Moore and other officials, has asked the court to dismiss the case. Their argument? Prior rulings have upheld parties’ right to exclude non-members, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that political parties have a First Amendment right to control their primaries. That’s true as far as it goes—but those rulings don’t answer the key question: should taxpayers foot the bill for elections they cannot participate in?

Why It Matters

Closed primaries don’t just waste taxpayer dollars—they tilt the playing field. In heavily Democratic Maryland, the primary often is the election. In 2022, 60% of legislative races were either unopposed or blowouts in the general. When primaries cost millions (Prince George’s County alone spent $2 million in 2024), it’s absurd to lock out nearly a quarter of the electorate.

That exclusion fuels polarization. Candidates pander to the loudest voices in their base, while moderates and independents are shut out. The result? We get nominees who represent the party faithful, not the broader public.

The Counterarguments—and a Path Forward

Critics of open primaries worry about “party raiding,” where independents or opposing-party voters intentionally vote for the weakest candidate to spoil the race. That’s a real concern—but one that can be solved without silencing nearly a million Marylanders.

Some states have found middle ground. New Mexico recently opened its primaries to 330,000 independents, joining 37 other states with open or semi-open systems. One practical compromise for Maryland might be letting independents temporarily affiliate with a party before the primary—an automatic, one-time switch that reverts before the general election. That preserves party integrity while respecting taxpayer fairness.

What’s at Stake

This lawsuit could reshape Maryland politics if it succeeds in time for the 2026 gubernatorial race. But even if the courts side with the establishment, the message is clear: voters are demanding more choice, more fairness, and more accountability. The two-party system may cling to its monopoly, but independent Marylanders are no longer content to be locked out of the process they’re paying for.

For a state that loves to lecture about “equity,” there’s nothing equitable about a system that takes taxpayers’ money and silences their voices.